We were made by one creator. Could it be that the creator was a group from an advanced race?

What other ways could science meet religion

I am saying is it possible that there are potential links between SCIENCE and RELIGION.
So what other ones can you think of?

You can speculate as much as you like?

HalfBloodPrince

I believe that God MADE science along with everything else. When the time was right, he allowed humans to discover electricity. Then the lightbulb, then so on and so forth, and here we are on the computer, talking to people thousands of miles away in a single click.

God chose what elements to put on Earth, which not to, how many protons are in one atom of a cretain element, etc...

And there is only ONE God, who is the Greatest as HIMSELF, and can never be compared to anything else.

Bikerman

chasbeen wrote:

We were made by one creator. Could it be that the creator was a group from an advanced race?

What other ways could science meet religion

The initial assumption is unproven so the speculation is meaningless.

liljp617

Bikerman wrote:

chasbeen wrote:

We were made by one creator. Could it be that the creator was a group from an advanced race?

What other ways could science meet religion

The initial assumption is unproven so the speculation is meaningless.

Close thread.

chasbeen

"We do exist in another form after our bodies wear out. "
Both the inner body and out of body existance is a concious one. There is no "total end" just transformation.

This is a second speculative point which, if true, would be another point where "Science Meets Religion"

Bikerman

chasbeen wrote:

"We do exist in another form after our bodies wear out. "
Both the inner body and out of body existance is a concious one. There is no "total end" just transformation.

And your evidence for this contentious claim is? The title of the thread is 'where science meets religion'. These statements may be religious but they have no scientific basis at all....

chasbeen

Might they become connected to Science in the future

Bikerman

chasbeen wrote:

Might they become connected to Science in the future

Well....given the fact that science has looked for some 'extra-corporeal' energy for a long time I doubt it. Also, given the fact that we are now beginning to understand consciousness and that it appears to be entirely physiological, I think it is highly unlikely that it will ever be shown that consciousness survives beyond death.
I could, of course, be wrong - any scientist* who said otherwise would be foolish, but I really wouldn't hold my breath...

* I class myself as a scientist only in the sense that I am acting as science advocate

chasbeen

Taking it from the other end though (and thanks for terms like "extra-corpreal") what about evidence of intelligent interaction between us and the unseen (dare I say it ghosts?)
Here's one of the ones in my immediate family.

My wife used to run a playgroup in a church hall in England with a fellow supervisor. They experienced several different occurrences. This story is mainly about the "fellow supervisor", but these events were experienced by
several co-workers as a group and (frighteningly) by themselves. It's worth reading a couple of times to make the connections. I can only report that these facts are as accurate as I can get them. I believe them 100%
because of the source.
*Evacuation of the children because of a smell of gas. Gas board arrives, they can smell it, but the smell goes away and it never comes back.
*An outside door to the street is set to sound an alarm when it is even slightly open (Security the children). One day it opens by itself and member of staff draws everyones attention to it. While watching the door closes. On checking the door no-one in the hall behind it. Door sounds alarm as "check" is carried out.
*Door keeps locking not letting co-supervisor out. "Are the children safe?" she keeps hearing.
*Several other reported incidents including. Someone in washroom/toilet when not possible, doors locking, things disappearing and then reappearing months later in an obvious place.
*Supervisor arriving first to see ghost of lady looking at her in seated position on a FREEZER!. Co-worker brings picture of old playgroup at a party in the next day. In amongst the faces she picks out the old deceased
playgroup leader

Add these together and this seems interactive with something that appears to be "intelligent" reacting to
current events. The occurrences are amongst entities that care for children.

Bikerman

Well, there is no way to test this scenario since it has already happened. I'm not casting doubt on the honesty of witnesses, but people are notoriously unreliable when it comes to remembering specific events so this must be a consideration.
The only useful response I can make is to point out that all experiments which have been designed to look into 'spirits' and 'ghosts' have, as far as I know, come up blank. There have been numerous accounts of spirits/ghosts over the last few centuries, but no reliable evidence has been produced to support such claims, and until it is I remain highly sceptical.

Coen

Science and religion can not meet in no way at all.

Relegion is all about believing things, no matter what. Science is about proving things. Those are two very diffrent aspects of approaching matters. Sciene and religion can therefor not meet as science can prove certain, if not most, things in relegion to be untrue or at least fishy so the need for religion would vanish if all people believed science.

videoguy

Coen wrote:

Science and religion can not meet in no way at all.

Relegion is all about believing things, no matter what. Science is about proving things. Those are two very diffrent aspects of approaching matters. Sciene and religion can therefor not meet as science can prove certain, if not most, things in relegion to be untrue or at least fishy so the need for religion would vanish if all people believed science.

correct. religion is based on faith. if there was sufficient evidence, religion WOULD BE SCIENCE. however, it is not. science requires people to find evidence for their untested theories (similar to beliefs), and to prove their theories using EVIDENCE. there is no such second step in religion. people who are religious just believe, even though there is not enough evidence to prove their beliefs in a scientifically rigerous way

achowles

That's funny. We were made by a creator were we? Seriously, think about it. What's more likely, us crawling out of a swamp and evolving into the species we are today. Which is still very primitive in many regards. Or some divine perfect being magicing us into existence?

The later would require that this perfect being, either alien or deity just popped into existence. Or evolved into what it was. Which would obviously take a lot longer and be a lot more unlikely than us reaching the point we have by ourselves. A lot more variables conspiring against its alleged existence than we have from evolution.

If you believe that this being has simply always existed then why is that more likely than the universe having always existed? At least we know it's a fact that the universe does exist. Assuming that this supreme being magiced it in its entirety into existence is ludicrous. Especially by comparison.

So why is that the most likely scenario? It doesn't add up. It requires a hell of a lot more than if things came to be the way they are unaided.

Bikerman

That is a fairly accurate statement of my own chief objection to the idea of a God. The simplest explanation is always the one you should choose (all else being equal). Introducing God into the problem of existence actually adds nothing to our undertanding of the universe (since God is held to be 'ineffable') but does introduce another layer of complexity into the problem.
The 'argument from design' is inherently flawed since it says 'something' must have designed our universe since the universe is full of complexity. It then completely ignores the fact that any potential designer must, itself, be an incredibly complex entity. If a complex universe cannot occur without a designer, how is it possible for a complex designer to occur?

HereticMonkey

Coen wrote:

Science and religion can not meet in no way at all.

I think a lot of religious scientists would debate that point...

Quote:

Relegion is all about believing things, no matter what. Science is about proving things. Those are two very diffrent aspects of approaching matters.

Let's just ignore that scientists have to believe stuff before they can prove it, and that even scientists can fall victim to urban legends. We also need to ignore that a lot of The Bible has been proven to have happened, even if it's not quite the way as shown (we know that the walls of Jericho came down as the Israelites came through, but it had far more to do with an earthquake than making some noise).

Quote:

Sciene and religion can therefor not meet as science can prove certain, if not most, things in relegion to be untrue or at least fishy so the need for religion would vanish if all people believed science.

And of course we need to ignore the number of converts to religion thanks to their own scientific investigations...

Science and religion can co-exist; they just need to stay in their respective places...

HM

Bikerman

Most religious scientists (and there are quite a few) WOULD argue that science and religion are distinct and do not overlap. It is generally known as the NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria).
By the way, no scientist has to believe something before they can 'prove' it.
There are very few scientists who believe that there is some scientific basis for their religious beliefs. There are some, of course, including characters like Behe and Dembski, but they are not normally taken too seriously by other scientists and have rarely (if ever) actually published anything in their professional journals to support their contentions.
Of course some of the bible accounts are factually accurate - it would be astonishing if it were otherwise. That is not really the issue. The issue is that the fundamentals of Christianity (or any other religion with the possible exception of scientology) are not provable by any scientific means.
In the case of Christianity, for example:
We cannot prove that Jesus was the son of God. We can say that there is no physical evidence for a God.
We cannot prove that he died and subsequently rose again. We can say that there is no physical evidence for the resurrection.
We cannot prove that Jesus was the son of a virgin. We can say that there is no physical evidence for the virgin birth.

The idea that science and religion can co-exist is true at present - they clearly do for many people. I am not sure that this will be so in the future - it depends on whether you believe that God is 'beyond' science or not. If you believe that there will always be room for a 'God' then they may continue to co-exist. If you don't believe that science leaves room for a God (and I am tending to that view but not yet entirely convinced) then religion will ultimately wither and die, since we know from history that in any conflict between science and religion it is religion that has to give ground. It is certainly true that the number of atheists is increasing as time passes and I see no reason to suppose that this trend will change.

cody4camp

i study biblical science so pm me if ya need any direction

Bikerman

cody4camp wrote:

i study biblical science so pm me if ya need any direction

Biblical science? An oxymoron methinks...

Indi

cody4camp wrote:

i study biblical science so pm me if ya need any direction

Is that one of those oxymorons like " deliberately thoughtless", "military intelligence" and " corporate ethics"? Because if it is, it's a good one.

Indi

Bikerman wrote:

cody4camp wrote:

i study biblical science so pm me if ya need any direction

Biblical science? An oxymoron methinks...

great minds think alike ^_^;

but then... fools seldom differ. ^_^;

Bikerman

Indi wrote:

Bikerman wrote:

cody4camp wrote:

i study biblical science so pm me if ya need any direction

Biblical science? An oxymoron methinks...

great minds think alike ^_^;

but then... fools seldom differ. ^_^;

LOL...let's agree on 'Sanity prevails', or at least 'pray for it'

Coen

HereticMonkey wrote:

Coen wrote:

Science and religion can not meet in no way at all.

I think a lot of religious scientists would debate that point...

Maybe they will. Probably because they are religious and at the same time, that religion could narrow their views as it will affect the way they look at things.

Quote:

Quote:

Relegion is all about believing things, no matter what. Science is about proving things. Those are two very diffrent aspects of approaching matters.

Let's just ignore that scientists have to believe stuff before they can prove it, and that even scientists can fall victim to urban legends. We also need to ignore that a lot of The Bible has been proven to have happened, even if it's not quite the way as shown (we know that the walls of Jericho came down as the Israelites came through, but it had far more to do with an earthquake than making some noise).

Some things that are in the bible has indeed been proven, I do not deny that. The bible is indeed a book with some historical value although the church has corrupted it by editing and leaving out several gospels. Even though the main things in the bible are the "miracles" and no one has been able to prove those.

Quote:

Quote:

Sciene and religion can therefor not meet as science can prove certain, if not most, things in relegion to be untrue or at least fishy so the need for religion would vanish if all people believed science.

And of course we need to ignore the number of converts to religion thanks to their own scientific investigations...

Science and religion can co-exist; they just need to stay in their respective places...

HM

I never said anything about not being able to co-exist. Religion bases on believing and science on proving. Those are two diffrent things so they can't go together properly as they are very diffrent.

JediPad

for many years science and religion have appeared as do contenders in a boxing match. one has to slay the other and triumph. this fight is foolish.

science and religion have to be combined, synthesised

the scientist has to be religious in his approach
and the seeker has to be scientific in his .

science and religion are different sides of the same door. science is exploration of the outer and religion is exploration of the inner. one who seeks to know must meditate. this is a scientific statement. science attempts to explain the universe, it searches the smallest grains of matter to see what they contain. an electron breaks into quarks. a quark it self will be broken down before long into something else. look scientifically at the journey of scientific progress. has it ever found a solution that was not subsequently broken? science sets itself the aim of explaining the universe according to laws, but there is no suggestion from reality that this is possible. there is every suggestion that it is not possible.

and this search is stupid. the scientist is trying to understand everything, and he is not even aware of who is searching. it has never occurred to him to look within. how can anything be more real than the one that observes ? so this search for reality must go inwards and become a search for the witness.

Indi

JediPad wrote:

science and religion have to be combined, synthesised

the scientist has to be religious in his approach
and the seeker has to be scientific in his .

Utterly impossible. Both would be destroyed.

The scientist must always be a disbeliever, or he will fail as a scientist. The moment a scientist falls victim to belief, they're finished (unless they're damn lucky hand just happen to turn out to be right, or their belief doesn't get in the way of what they're doing). Consider the case of Einstein, who rejected quantum mechanics because he believed that the universe couldn't be operating according to its fickle laws. He spent the remainder of his life trying to create a "theory of everything", but ultimately failed because he didn't incorporate quantum mechanics, which had overwhelming scientific support (and has even more now). If he had... maybe he might have succeeded. Or maybe not. My point is that he completely wrecked his chance by following his beliefs rather than the evidence.

The religious person can never turn completely to science, or their religion will be lost. If science led to any religion, it would be in the science text books. No religion is. Religions try to selectively interpret science and co-opt bits and pieces that suit them and ditch the rest. That works for religion, i guess, but it's lousy science. If they used good science, it would blow the entire religion out of the water. Which is why they don't.

Each can survive very brief, very limited interaction with the other. Maybe you could argue that they even benefit from it (although i wouldn't try to). But any protracted interaction has always led to strife, and always will. They do not, and cannot, mix.

JediPad wrote:

science and religion are different sides of the same door. science is exploration of the outer and religion is exploration of the inner. one who seeks to know must meditate. this is a scientific statement. science attempts to explain the universe, it searches the smallest grains of matter to see what they contain. an electron breaks into quarks. a quark it self will be broken down before long into something else. look scientifically at the journey of scientific progress. has it ever found a solution that was not subsequently broken? science sets itself the aim of explaining the universe according to laws, but there is no suggestion from reality that this is possible. there is every suggestion that it is not possible.

What evidence do you have of that last claim?

(By the way, your science is atrocious. Electrons do not break into anything. Quarks do not break into anything either, and all indications we have are that they can't. You may argue that they made the same claims about protons and even atoms, but i would point out that they made those claims about them before they were able to actually study them - no one had proven the existence of atoms when they were thought to be fundamental, and by they time they found them, they knew they weren't. By contrast, we have isolated quarks already, and we still think they have no substructure.)

It is often claimed that science and religion are both operating in different areas. Most people don't bother to argue that, or even give it any deep thought. i usually don't. But tonight, i think i will throw out a challenge.

Let's pretend for a moment that the claim is true, and that science and religion don't overlap, and thus, don't have to compete. The domain of science is the entire natural universe. All space. All time. The domain of religion is the nebulously defined "spiritual", and anything transcendental to space and time. But here's the catch. If any part of religion... any part of it... interacts with any way with the physical universe... then it treads into the domain of science. That means that, for example, if God speaks to a human to deliver his message... BAM, religion has broken into science's territory. If you have a spiritual "soul" that guides your physical brain and body... BAM, overlap again.

What that means is that the only way this separation of church and lab can work is if religion stays completely out of the physical universe. Completely. Otherwise... conflict.

And if religion really has absolutely no impact on the world... none at all... what's the point? It might as well not exist.

How would you resolve this problem?

HereticMonkey

And I was so trying hard to ignore this thread...

I would argue that a science and religion are intertwined, and that this is a very good relationship. A seeker needs the logic he gains from science, and is able to better ignore temptation and irrationality if he uses scientific logic to look at his religion. He can fully explore his religion, and separate the wheat from the chaff and fully consider the implications of his beliefs. By applying the scientific method to religious thought you can develop insights into your religion that you would otherwise ignore and explore them, just as you would explore a puzzling result in the lab.

A scientist needs both conscience and faith. He needs the conscience so that he will not explore optoins that are unethical and illegal, allowing him to operate without doing damage that he shouldn't be inflicting; the Hippocratic Oath, for example, where the doctor must first do no harm. He also needs the faith to keep doing what he is doing, even when it may take decades to accomplish something, or when he knows that he is yet another leg in a long relay. You also create a person who is interested in the implications of his research rather than just the immediate results.

It's interesting to note that most of are greatest scientists also had a religious background, and that almost all of our sciences could not have happened without religious inquiry into the universe. I think that atheists dismiss faith far too quickly when it comes to science....

HM

Afaceinthematrix

chasbeen wrote:

Taking it from the other end though (and thanks for terms like "extra-corpreal") what about evidence of intelligent interaction between us and the unseen (dare I say it ghosts?)
Here's one of the ones in my immediate family.

The average person has never had an experience like this, and most people will be unwilling to accept this unless it happens to themselves. I have never had an experience like this, and if I ever did, I would want to make sure that there isn't a simple, logical reason for the incident. I have heard of many claims of ghost stories, and all of them seem to have a logical explanation and the victim is merely blaming the supernatural for something that they cannot explain.

Sparda

Well.. Here is how science meets religion. First, you take a religious person and make that person a science class teacher. I know all of the science teachers I had were religious. I thought it was kind of odd having a religious person teaching science saying that "science" and "religion" don't really agree on each other. Sometimes I would have my teacher start talking about I have to teach this to you, but I believe that God did so and so. It would probably be better to have an atheist as a science teacher.

Indi

Sparda wrote:

Well.. Here is how science meets religion. First, you take a religious person and make that person a science class teacher. I know all of the science teachers I had were religious. I thought it was kind of odd having a religious person teaching science saying that "science" and "religion" don't really agree on each other. Sometimes I would have my teacher start talking about I have to teach this to you, but I believe that God did so and so. It would probably be better to have an atheist as a science teacher.

An atheist would make a lousy science teacher if they did they same thing. Imagine in the middle of a discussion of entropy, if a science teacher suddenly said, "anyway, i know this isn't on the lesson plan, but i wanted to talk to you about why God doesn't exist".

It doesn't matter a squat what the teacher believes, so long as when they are teaching science, they actually teach science. If a religious person can't shut the hell up about their beliefs and teach science, then they shouldn't be a science teacher. The same is true for an atheist.

Sparda

Indi wrote:

An atheist would make a lousy science teacher if they did they same thing. Imagine in the middle of a discussion of entropy, if a science teacher suddenly said, "anyway, i know this isn't on the lesson plan, but i wanted to talk to you about why God doesn't exist".

It doesn't matter a squat what the teacher believes, so long as when they are teaching science, they actually teach science. If a religious person can't shut the hell up about their beliefs and teach science, then they shouldn't be a science teacher. The same is true for an atheist.

You make a good point there Indi. Maybe it is just my teachers that like to talk about their religion.

Bryan_Bezzle

Creation Theory doesn't have evidence while Evolution Theory leaves much to be desired. I think Extraterrestrial Theory explains pretty much everything. Science and religion could very well be connected at the hip.

Indi

Sparda wrote:

You make a good point there Indi. Maybe it is just my teachers that like to talk about their religion.

i'm sure many people like to talk about their religion, and you can't really blame them for that. But i've worked as a teacher, and any teacher that would suborn a science class (or English class, or even a Bible studies class (!?!... yes, that was no mistake, and i will explain why in a second)) to talk about their religion should be fired on the spot.

Most of the religious people i talk to find a lot of joy and comfort in their religion, and they want to share it with everyone. And good on them, i can't fault them for that. In fact, if their religion does make them happy, i applaud them for sharing it with anyone who wants to listen, because - in their own way - they are trying to spread happiness, which is a worthwhile cause.

But, as with anything else, there are times and places where such talk is acceptable, and times and places where it is not. i would hardly be surprised if a group of Christians got upset if i were invited to give a sermon at a church, and i started talking about proper exception safety in C++ code or psychological perspectives on epistemology. i would have betrayed the trust of the contract between us: we had an agreement - usually implicit - that i would give a sermon that was relevant to Christianity, and by presenting information that was not, i have deceived them. Relevant asides are, of course, possible... but only when they either add to the material being presented (or, when they serve a purpose of engaging the audience, like a brief joke). Nothing in that sermon should serve any purpose that is not ultimately related to teaching a Christian message - whatever the message of the sermon is. A science class represents an implicit contract between the student and the teacher where the teacher has agreed to teach science. The only thing that teacher should be presenting from the moment the class starts until the moment it ends... is science. Jokes and asides are fine - but every single one of those jokes and asides must ultimately be about teaching the science. When a teacher stops a class on evolution to discuss how evolution's first challenge was Paleyesque design theory, that improves the student's understanding of the theory of evolution and how it came to be... so it is relevant. When a creationist stops a class on evolution and starts talking about their religion or how they think the species were created... that information does not do anything with regards to the science being taught. It's an abuse of power, a betrayal of trust, and a waste of class time. Anyone who does it should be fired. On the spot.

i mentioned about that even talking about one's religion in a Bible studies class is wrong, which would make most people scratch their head. But if the class is intended to study what the Bible says... what relevance do the teacher's beliefs have? Answer... none. The teacher's beliefs are utterly irrelevant. An atheist can teach a Bible study class. And, you want to hear something funny...? i have. ^_- (Technically not a Bible study class, but a class about the moral lessons in some parables. It was sponsored by the Berean Bible Institute of... Maryland? Eh, i can't tell half the states apart. But it serves to illustrate my point - only one of the students in the three groups i taught left those classes aware that i was atheist... and she asked me directly after class.)

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Creation Theory doesn't have evidence while Evolution Theory leaves much to be desired. I think Extraterrestrial Theory explains pretty much everything. Science and religion could very well be connected at the hip.

First of all, evolution theory has not been seriously challenged in scientific circles since the 1920's. All of this "controversy" you hear about... it's manufactured lies orchestrated in the popular media. The number of peer-reviewed scientific articles that dispute evolution in my university's search engine: 0. (i know you can't confirm this unless you have that level of access, but anyone can use PubMed to search for free, and i'm sure you'll find the same results.)

Now i'm not sure what you mean by "leaves much to be desired". i suppose it does leave much to be desired to someone who wants to use a 2000 year old anthology of myths as the basis for for their scientific view of the world. For a scientist, however, evolution is perfectly acceptable. It is supported by mountains of evidence, and it has absolutely no evidence against (none of the nonsense that creationists have made up has stood up to the light of scientific rigour).

Second, neither "Creation Theory" nor "Extraterrestrial Theory" - assuming they mean what i think they mean - qualify as scientific theories. So they're not really relevant in any discussion of connecting science and religion.

Third, it does not matter how much a "theory" explains. In order to be a scientific theory, a "theory" must pass several very harsh, very strict tests. Only a very small amount of "theories" have passed those tests. Evolutionary theory has passed those tests. Neither of the other theories you have mentioned has.

Fourth, at the end of your aimless rambling, you throw out this line with any support, or any reasoning: "Science and religion could very well be connected at the hip." Other than that you want it to be true for the purpose of making you feel better about your religious beliefs... is there anything to that statement, or are just making noise?

HereticMonkey

Actually, science and religion may very well be connected at the hip. Science has, after all, gotten most of its original momentum and funding from religious sources, and it's worth noting that, until the last century or so, most scientific inquiry was done by clergy. Heck, even Darwin discovered evolution thanks to funding by his local diocese and due to his need to prove various issues (such as The Flood).

More to the point, you have scientists today that began their careers claiming some form of atheism or agnosticism turning to some form of religion (even if it's just a generic "Superior Being") due to their own explorations of the universe, finding that the universe was just too perfect for them.

Something worth noting....

HM

Coen

HereticMonkey wrote:

Actually, science and religion may very well be connected at the hip. Science has, after all, gotten most of its original momentum and funding from religious sources, and it's worth noting that, until the last century or so, most scientific inquiry was done by clergy. Heck, even Darwin discovered evolution thanks to funding by his local diocese and due to his need to prove various issues (such as The Flood).

More to the point, you have scientists today that began their careers claiming some form of atheism or agnosticism turning to some form of religion (even if it's just a generic "Superior Being") due to their own explorations of the universe, finding that the universe was just too perfect for them.

Something worth noting....

HM

Something which is also worth noting is that most scientists turn atheist instead of the other way around. Something which is also worth noticing is that the curch burned, convicted and outlawed all scientists who found things not matching up with their ways or something that would break the doctrine. There truth is that, although sciene was done in favour of the church early on, the church started to outlaw and convict scientists who made discoveries that didn't corrospond with the bible. I am thinking of, for example, Copernicus who said the earth was moving and not the sun and found prove and of Newton who was made ridicilous after his discovery. Even though the church started science they now resent most of it.

Bikerman

Coen wrote:

Something which is also worth noting is that most scientists turn atheist instead of the other way around. Something which is also worth noticing is that the curch burned, convicted and outlawed all scientists who found things not matching up with their ways or something that would break the doctrine. There truth is that, although sciene was done in favour of the church early on, the church started to outlaw and convict scientists who made discoveries that didn't corrospond with the bible. I am thinking of, for example, Copernicus who said the earth was moving and not the sun and found prove and of Newton who was made ridicilous after his discovery. Even though the church started science they now resent most of it.

Care is needed when citing these cases. Nicholaus Copernicus was, for example, a Canon in the Church and suffered no overt hardships because of his beliefs. He was, in fact, a timid little man whose contribution to science has been massively overplayed in history. His 'Copernican' system was little better than the Ptolomeic system of nearly a thousand years before.
The persecution of Galileo is also overdone, in my opinion. He was a rather arrogant man and deliberately forced the confrontation with the church. The Pope had, in fact, given him many opportunities to avoid the final confrontation and he was treated (as were most scholars of the time) very well generally. Even after his final confrontation his actual punishment was to be held captive in a rather palatial residence for a couple of years with every luxury afforded him.

Having said all this, I disagree that the Church deserves much credit for the evolution of scientific thought. It is a simple truism to say that most scientists have been religious. In the western world EVERYBODY was religious (with a few notable exceptions). Being an atheist was simply not an option and could result in removal of breathing priviledges. It is only during the last century or so that it has been possible to express atheism and not suffer severe consequences. Even today in many parts of the world expressing atheism is likely to attract abuse and discrimination. In this context it is hardly surprising (or significant) that the important thinkers in western history were indeed religious. A much better test of any potential correlation between science and religion would be to examine the beliefs of today's scientists, rather than take a historical approach. If this is done it is evident that a large, and growing, number of eminent scientists today are atheistic.

The Church was indeed responsible for many advances in scientific thought, but it was equally responsible for the suppression and persecution of such thought in many cases. The whole historical period from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance is known as the 'Dark Ages' and with some justification. This was the period that the Catholic Church reigned supreme in Europe and was a period of scientific stagnation and decline. The neo-Platonic attitude of the Church led to profound 'double-think' in everyday life. Sea-farers, for example, were well aware of the Ptolomeic universe (sun-centred - 'Heliocentric'), and that the world was, in fact, round. They were allowed to use maps and charts based on these principles, since they worked, as long as they 'understood' that the world was really not round and not really the centre of the 'universe'.
This strange 'double-think', bordering on schizophrenia, was a common feature of the 'dark ages'.

It is obviously guesswork to imagine what a world without Christianity would look like, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that, if civilisation had progressed from the ancient Greeks without the religious years of the dark ages, we would be much more scientifically advanced than we are today.

Bryan_Bezzle

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Creation Theory doesn't have evidence while Evolution Theory leaves much to be desired. I think Extraterrestrial Theory explains pretty much everything. Science and religion could very well be connected at the hip.

First of all, evolution theory has not been seriously challenged in scientific circles since the 1920's. All of this "controversy" you hear about... it's manufactured lies orchestrated in the popular media. The number of peer-reviewed scientific articles that dispute evolution in my university's search engine: 0. (i know you can't confirm this unless you have that level of access, but anyone can use PubMed to search for free, and i'm sure you'll find the same results.)

Now i'm not sure what you mean by "leaves much to be desired". i suppose it does leave much to be desired to someone who wants to use a 2000 year old anthology of myths as the basis for for their scientific view of the world. For a scientist, however, evolution is perfectly acceptable. It is supported by mountains of evidence, and it has absolutely no evidence against (none of the nonsense that creationists have made up has stood up to the light of scientific rigour).

Second, neither "Creation Theory" nor "Extraterrestrial Theory" - assuming they mean what i think they mean - qualify as scientific theories. So they're not really relevant in any discussion of connecting science and religion.

Third, it does not matter how much a "theory" explains. In order to be a scientific theory, a "theory" must pass several very harsh, very strict tests. Only a very small amount of "theories" have passed those tests. Evolutionary theory has passed those tests. Neither of the other theories you have mentioned has.

Fourth, at the end of your aimless rambling, you throw out this line with any support, or any reasoning: "Science and religion could very well be connected at the hip." Other than that you want it to be true for the purpose of making you feel better about your religious beliefs... is there anything to that statement, or are just making noise?[/quote]

Just making noise I suppose. But as far as just saying it to make myself feel better, isn't that why you try to shoot everyone else's opinions down? to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else? Truth is you haven't been around since the beginning of time to witness this you are just stating things that you have read or were told. This forum is open for discussion right? Or is it the Indi knows all bow before him/her or he/she will blast you with her incredible amounts of intelligence forum?

Indi

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Just making noise I suppose. But as far as just saying it to make myself feel better, isn't that why you try to shoot everyone else's opinions down? to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else?

Nope. i don't "shoot down opinions". i shoot down lies.

If you say: "i believe the Earth is square," that is a statement of your opinion. Unless it is a particularly bigoted opinion that might possibly result in the suffering of others if it were to be allowed to fester, you will find that i will not respond. If that's really what you want to believe, go nuts. i'm not going to stop you.

But if you say: "i believe the Earth is square because the 'round Earth' theory is unsound/controversial," you have stated a falsehood. The fact that the Earth is round is not in any real doubt, save for the ravings of an increasingly small number of Flat Earthers. i will, therefore, object, and point out that you have said something that is simply not true. Furthermore, while you may have a right to your opinion, you do not have a right to distort facts and evidence in your claims. The statement that the 'round Earth' theory is in controversy or unsound is a lie, and you do not have a right to lie without being challenged.

So if you were to say something like: "i believe the Earth was created in six literal days 10,000 years ago, with humans created in pretty much their current form," i will stay silent. You are free to believe whatever lunacy you want to believe. But if you say something like: "i believe 'creation theory' because 'evolution theory' is unsound", i will object. And if you don't like it, tough cookies. Your only two options are: 1.) do the research to find out whether 'evolution theory' really is unsound, and if you find out it is come back and rub my face in it (but if you find out it's not, then my point is made), or 2.) stop making claims that 'evolution theory' is unsound. Your choice.

As for whether i feel "smarter" when i point out your abysmal knowledge of science... no, not really. i suppose i might if you presented any kind of intellectual challenge, but most of the arguments you have presented have been around since at least the 1920's. All i am doing is repeating commonly held knowledge that - as i have recently complained - i have to repeat over and over and over again. A trained monkey could do it (and if i were writing the bulletin board software Frihost uses, i would probably include a button to auto-respond to creationists posts with links to evidence that their claims are false... that's how little intelligence it takes), so no, i do not feel "smart" doing it.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Truth is you haven't been around since the beginning of time to witness this you are just stating things that you have read or were told.

Everything i state i can back up, with scientific evidence. Furthermore, i never make any claims i cannot back up using my own, personal, theoretical knowledge of science. i am not just parroting authorities. i have researched what i say, and can back up every word of it.

i should also point out that you have not been around since the beginning of time either. But can you back up your claims with anything but appeals to "authorities"? Impossible.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

This forum is open for discussion right? Or is it the Indi knows all bow before him/her or he/she will blast you with her incredible amounts of intelligence forum?

Discussion includes dissent. If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, don't use them to challenge others.

Bryan_Bezzle

Indi wrote:

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Just making noise I suppose. But as far as just saying it to make myself feel better, isn't that why you try to shoot everyone else's opinions down? to make yourself feel smarter than everyone else?

Nope. i don't "shoot down opinions". i shoot down lies.

If you say: "i believe the Earth is square," that is a statement of your opinion. Unless it is a particularly bigoted opinion that might possibly result in the suffering of others if it were to be allowed to fester, you will find that i will not respond. If that's really what you want to believe, go nuts. i'm not going to stop you.

But if you say: "i believe the Earth is square because the 'round Earth' theory is unsound/controversial," you have stated a falsehood. The fact that the Earth is round is not in any real doubt, save for the ravings of an increasingly small number of Flat Earthers. i will, therefore, object, and point out that you have said something that is simply not true. Furthermore, while you may have a right to your opinion, you do not have a right to distort facts and evidence in your claims. The statement that the 'round Earth' theory is in controversy or unsound is a lie, and you do not have a right to lie without being challenged.

So if you were to say something like: "i believe the Earth was created in six literal days 10,000 years ago, with humans created in pretty much their current form," i will stay silent. You are free to believe whatever lunacy you want to believe. But if you say something like: "i believe 'creation theory' because 'evolution theory' is unsound", i will object. And if you don't like it, tough cookies. Your only two options are: 1.) do the research to find out whether 'evolution theory' really is unsound, and if you find out it is come back and rub my face in it (but if you find out it's not, then my point is made), or 2.) stop making claims that 'evolution theory' is unsound. Your choice.

As for whether i feel "smarter" when i point out your abysmal knowledge of science... no, not really. i suppose i might if you presented any kind of intellectual challenge, but most of the arguments you have presented have been around since at least the 1920's. All i am doing is repeating commonly held knowledge that - as i have recently complained - i have to repeat over and over and over again. A trained monkey could do it (and if i were writing the bulletin board software Frihost uses, i would probably include a button to auto-respond to creationists posts with links to evidence that their claims are false... that's how little intelligence it takes), so no, i do not feel "smart" doing it.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Truth is you haven't been around since the beginning of time to witness this you are just stating things that you have read or were told.

Everything i state i can back up, with scientific evidence. Furthermore, i never make any claims i cannot back up using my own, personal, theoretical knowledge of science. i am not just parroting authorities. i have researched what i say, and can back up every word of it.

i should also point out that you have not been around since the beginning of time either. But can you back up your claims with anything but appeals to "authorities"? Impossible.

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

This forum is open for discussion right? Or is it the Indi knows all bow before him/her or he/she will blast you with her incredible amounts of intelligence forum?

Discussion includes dissent. If you can't handle having your beliefs challenged, don't use them to challenge others.

I can't believe in entirety anything about the creation of life. Im not saying I believe in creationism and by saying evolution leaves much to be desired, im only saying that because say for example...until the missing link is found..how can I truely believe I descended from ape? Extraterrestrial theory I just threw in jokingly because there is no evidence for that either. My beliefs being challenged is something I want. Doesn't mean I would change them, but I like someone debunking something I take as truth. I am not telling you what is right, I am only defending that which we have not proven to be wrong.

Indi

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

I can't believe in entirety anything about the creation of life. Im not saying I believe in creationism and by saying evolution leaves much to be desired, im only saying that because say for example...until the missing link is found..how can I truely believe I descended from ape? Extraterrestrial theory I just threw in jokingly because there is no evidence for that either. My beliefs being challenged is something I want. Doesn't mean I would change them, but I like someone debunking something I take as truth. I am not telling you what is right, I am only defending that which we have not proven to be wrong.

The missing link is a myth. Dating back to the 1920's.

Modern evolutionary science is not the same thing that Darwin wrote about in 1859. We don't talk about transitional forms anymore, because we realized that doesn't make sense. Now we talk about transitional features... which rules out the notion of "missing links".

Bryan_Bezzle

Indi wrote:

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

I can't believe in entirety anything about the creation of life. Im not saying I believe in creationism and by saying evolution leaves much to be desired, im only saying that because say for example...until the missing link is found..how can I truely believe I descended from ape? Extraterrestrial theory I just threw in jokingly because there is no evidence for that either. My beliefs being challenged is something I want. Doesn't mean I would change them, but I like someone debunking something I take as truth. I am not telling you what is right, I am only defending that which we have not proven to be wrong.

The missing link is a myth. Dating back to the 1920's.

Modern evolutionary science is not the same thing that Darwin wrote about in 1859. We don't talk about transitional forms anymore, because we realized that doesn't make sense. Now we talk about transitional features... which rules out the notion of "missing links".

Then enlighten me on how exactly we evolved from ape please. I honestly do not know.

HereticMonkey

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Then enlighten me on how exactly we evolved from ape please. I honestly do not know.

No one can enlighten you in that regard; mankind didn't evolve from apes. The primate that we evolved from had more to do with chimpanzees than apes (we were originally tree-swingers that ran from everything). We grew bigger, hairless, and our brain got bigger. All transitional stuff that could have evolved slowly, and occasionally in leaps and bounds.

HM

Bikerman

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Then enlighten me on how exactly we evolved from ape please. I honestly do not know.

It seems they still have a lot of work to do but that is pretty interesting.

Bikerman

There is always more work to do - that is one of the fascinations of science.

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

If this is done it is evident that a large, and growing, number of eminent scientists today are atheistic.

Although I agree that scientists were religious out of necessity, I definitely disagree with this. This is not a provable point, and is based more on your personal opinion than any kind of fact. It goes against a number of polls, and even the known biographies of most scientists. It would be nice, I guess for the atheist side, but it's a known trend that scientists tend to find belief in some form of higher power based on their own explorations.

I would also point out that a number of scientists were in fact religious, and that their discoveries tended to enforce that perspective. Darwin and George Washington Carver are the best example, but hardly exceptions. On the other hand, it's sort of rare to hear that scientific exploration enforces atheism (unless we're talking about psychology).

Quote:

The whole historical period from the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance is known as the 'Dark Ages' and with some justification.

However, there were forces at work other than religion. There was also empire-building, political unrest, agricultural issues, lack of a middle class, the Black Plague, and a host of other issues that you could blame. To concentrate on just one reason ignores that history is made up of all sorts of things, and that religion is just part of that mix, not the main cause of it.

Quote:

It is obviously guesswork to imagine what a world without Christianity would look like, but I think it is a reasonable assumption that, if civilisation had progressed from the ancient Greeks without the religious years of the dark ages, we would be much more scientifically advanced than we are today.

Not really. Too many historians would actually disagree with you, as every culture (including the Greeks) went through their own dark ages, even if it was just a few centuries. And they weren't just caused by religion; China's dark age was caused by political unrest followed by rigid government (the story of the Emperor and the Ornithopter is fairly well-known).

So I don't think that it's a reasonable assumption at all, nor do I think that the Dark Ages had no real growth in them, especially given all that we learned about ourselves in that period...

HM

Bryan_Bezzle

Bikerman wrote:

There is always more work to do - that is one of the fascinations of science.

I think we can agree that science is about working to figure it out and religion expects it to be revealed one day?

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

Be careful who you listen to. Chimps, for example, ARE apes.

Note that I'm differentiating chimps from gorillas, even while recognizing that they are both great apes (mainly because of the brachiation). Also, that the humans' closest simian ancestor was more of a lemur than a true ape...

HM

HereticMonkey

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

I think we can agree that science is about working to figure it out and religion expects it to be revealed one day?

Depends on how you define that one day...

[Keep in mind that some of us don't define one day=24 hours, for biblical purposes....]

HM

Bikerman

Quote:

If this is done it is evident that a large, and growing, number of eminent scientists today are atheistic.

(I do not make claims that I am not prepared to back-up - I leave it to others to provide evidence for their claims).

Bikerman

HereticMonkey wrote:

Note that I'm differentiating chimps from gorillas, even while recognizing that they are both great apes (mainly because of the brachiation). Also, that the humans' closest simian ancestor was more of a lemur than a true ape...

HereticMonkey wrote:

No one can enlighten you in that regard; mankind didn't evolve from apes. The primate that we evolved from had more to do with chimpanzees than apes

Bryan_Bezzle

Bikerman wrote:

HereticMonkey wrote:

Note that I'm differentiating chimps from gorillas, even while recognizing that they are both great apes (mainly because of the brachiation). Also, that the humans' closest simian ancestor was more of a lemur than a true ape...

HereticMonkey wrote:

No one can enlighten you in that regard; mankind didn't evolve from apes. The primate that we evolved from had more to do with chimpanzees than apes

So..lemurs or chimps?

Bikerman

The link I suggested should explain..

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

HereticMonkey wrote:

Note that I'm differentiating chimps from gorillas, even while recognizing that they are both great apes (mainly because of the brachiation). Also, that the humans' closest simian ancestor was more of a lemur than a true ape...

HereticMonkey wrote:

No one can enlighten you in that regard; mankind didn't evolve from apes. The primate that we evolved from had more to do with chimpanzees than apes

And...your point?

Or are you so removed from dealing with people that you don't realize that sometimes people see a difference between a specific kind of animal and the animal's general type? That people would see a difference between an ape as synonym for gorilla, and ape as a group of primates...?

Note that I said "Higher Being", not God. Meaning I was allowing for On the other hand, it did mention that the courts should treat atheism as a religion...could be useful later.

Quote:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

40%+45%>100%. What about the other 15%? Also note the figure is five time higher than the 8% of the first article...

Quote:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html

Man...I hate registering just to see what silliness you are up to...Also, note that it was "the greatest scientists"; given that it is an atheist article, I wonder if they used "espousing religion of any kind" would have been used as a filter...For that matter, I wonder if they used Young Einstein or Old Einstein...

Quote:

(I do not make claims that I am not prepared to back-up - I leave it to others to provide evidence for their claims).

Heh...

HM

Bikerman

My claim was:

Quote:

"If this is done it is evident that a large, and growing, number of eminent scientists today are atheistic."

The evidence is supplied in the links above. The following are a collection of quotes from those sources

Quote:

The scientific community, above any other subgroup of the population, has become overwhelmingly atheistic. According to a 1998 report in Nature, a recent survey finds that, "among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever; almost total". Interestingly, the biologists in the National Academy of Science possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God.

Quote:

A leading scientific journal concludes that increasingly, scientists have doubts about the existence of a deity or similar supernatural and religious claims. This finding questions the pop-culture view that science and religion are moving toward a consensus, and a shared view about the humanity and the universe. The study also touches on the changing character of the scientific enterprise in modern society

Quote:

The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

I understand that some people do not wish to subscribe to Nature in order to read the full article but that does not, in itself, refute the claim.
If there is any evidence to refute this claim I sincerely wish to see it.

HereticMonkey

1) Let's see: In 1988, only 5.5% of all BIOLOGISTS believed in God (specifcially), with 8% of scientists in general (that's YOUR first source). By 2007, that figure is 40% (as per YOUR second source). I would call that an increase...And this from a site with an obvious bias!

2) By the same token, I hardly find it credible that an atheist-biased article would point out that most "Top" natural scientists don't believe in some sort of deity. Especially without knowing who is on that list, or what they criteria they used to determine "top".

You claim to have some sort of scientific training; did that not include being suspicious of obviously biased sources? Or did you learn nothing from the racist scientist who "proved" that blacks had a smaller brain case via sand count in 1866, only to get nailed twenty years later when they found out that he had used a different sand in black skulls than he did in white skulls?

Sorry, I'm just not buying it here...

HM

Bikerman

HereticMonkey wrote:

1) Let's see: In 1988, only 5.5% of all BIOLOGISTS believed in God (specifcially), with 8% of scientists in general (that's YOUR first source). By 2007, that figure is 40% (as per YOUR second source). I would call that an increase...And this from a site with an obvious bias!

Complete fantasy - the sources I provided say nothing of the sort.

Quote:

The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.

Quote:

2) By the same token, I hardly find it credible that an atheist-biased article would point out that most "Top" natural scientists don't believe in some sort of deity. Especially without knowing who is on that list, or what they criteria they used to determine "top".

And your 'non-atheist' sources are? Nature is a respected professional journal, not an 'atheist-biased' source.

Quote:

You claim to have some sort of scientific training; did that not include being suspicious of obviously biased sources? Or did you learn nothing from the racist scientist who "proved" that blacks had a smaller brain case via sand count in 1866, only to get nailed twenty years later when they found out that he had used a different sand in black skulls than he did in white skulls?

No...I HAVE some scientific training, I claim nothing. Your attempt to muddy the waters by introducing an entirely unrelated factoid is rather obvious and completely irrelevant....

Bryan_Bezzle

Well atheism is NOT a religion and should not be recognized as one by the courts. Merriam-Webster defines religion as:

1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Since atheism does not believe in God and opposes religion, they should not be regarded as one. Even the last explanation of religion, #4, which is the closest one that atheism could be defined under, says held to with ardor and faith. Ardor in this definition is being used as extreme intensity, vigor, and loyalty to faith. Faith is described as a belief of something which there is no proof, otherwise a system of religious beliefs. Atheists do not have faith because they choose not believe in something they cannot see. If you want even further detail, type in any religion i.e. Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, and do not capitalize the first letter you will get the red underline while atheism is not supposed to be capitalized therefore no red underline. Atheism is not, and should not be, recognized as a religion.

Bikerman

I agree that atheism is not a religion. I suspect the reason that US atheists tried to define it as such is to do with the tax breaks that religions enjoy. It does seem unfair that any religious organisation can get tax relief whilst an organisation of atheists cannot....

Bryan_Bezzle

Maybe they should be recognized as some type of organization or even a union tax-break wise. I'm not too smart when it comes to taxes and such. But I'm glad we agree that atheism is not a religion.

Bikerman

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Maybe they should be recognized as some type of organization or even a union tax-break wise. I'm not too smart when it comes to taxes and such. But I'm glad we agree that atheism is not a religion.

Indeed we do and I suspect that most atheists would also agree with that (though I obviously would not consider myself qualified to speak for all atheists)..

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

Complete fantasy - the sources I provided say nothing of the sort.

Yep, they did. Did you not bother reading them before quoting them?

Quote:

And your 'non-atheist' sources are? Nature is a respected professional journal, not an 'atheist-biased' source.

In this case, I'm looking at that you quoted from an atheist source rather the source itself. As far as other sources, as per our other debates, the figure runs from 8% to 97%, depending on source, with various newspaper and magazine polls showing around 62%.

Quote:

No...I HAVE some scientific training, I claim nothing. Your attempt to muddy the waters by introducing an entirely unrelated factoid is rather obvious and completely irrelevant....

And what factoid was that? I'm just trying to make the point that your should be critical of your sources; why is an atheist source any better than a religious source, other than it serves your point better? Just thought critical thinking was the basis of scientific training...

HM

Bryan_Bezzle

Touche' Biker-Man.

HereticMonkey

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Maybe they should be recognized as some type of organization or even a union tax-break wise. I'm not too smart when it comes to taxes and such. But I'm glad we agree that atheism is not a religion.

As long as we conveniently ignore the definition of religion...

HM

Bikerman

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Touche' Biker-Man.

I suggest you read the sources I provided rather than the inaccurate commentary from HereticMonkey. You will note, I hope, that one of us provides sources for their contentions and the other does not....

Bryan_Bezzle

HereticMonkey wrote:

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Maybe they should be recognized as some type of organization or even a union tax-break wise. I'm not too smart when it comes to taxes and such. But I'm glad we agree that atheism is not a religion.

As long as we conveniently ignore the definition of religion...

HM

I'm meaning to give them a tax-break as some kind of group and not a religion. Kind of like my belief that gay couples should get some type of civil-union and get the same rights as a married couple..but should not be considered 'married'...but I probably shouldn't have said that I do not wish to change the subject of this topic... only using it as a reference.

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

I suggest you read the sources I provided rather than the inaccurate commentary from HereticMonkey. You will note, I hope, that one of us provides sources for their contentions and the other does not....

Admittedly I screwed up the years; it made no sense that two studies measuring the same group in the same year would be that disparate. Nonetheless, you still have two articles showing 5.5% and 40% atheists in the same year. That's interesting....

More interesting is that no poll since then has been believed by both sides. The issue being, of course, that polls are by definition limited in how they can define religion, and that too many people combine beliefs from atheist and religion. Just thought it was interesting....

HM

Indi

Bryan_Bezzle wrote:

Maybe they should be recognized as some type of organization or even a union tax-break wise. I'm not too smart when it comes to taxes and such. But I'm glad we agree that atheism is not a religion.

i don't think anyone but a few pinheads are into insisting that atheism is actually a religion... and they only do it for the sake of argument, so they can claim that atheism is a religion just like their own beliefs and thus no better or worse in any relevant aspects. There are atheist religions, but atheism itself is a category of beliefs. It includes some religions, but not all atheist beliefs are religions.

However, there are political reasons in America to get atheism branded as a religion. Tax equality is one of them, but not the only one.

Conscientious objectors to war get a free pass if the cite religious reasons, but an atheist usually has no such recourse, and so must present a detailed defence of the position. Not every atheist is as eloquent as you or i might be about our beliefs, and the burden for non-religious conscientious objection is high. If atheism was a "religion", an atheist pacifist would get the same treatment as a Christian or Buddhist pacifist.

There are no laws in the American legal system that openly discriminate against any religion... but there are laws that openly discriminate against atheists. (Don't believe me? This is the 2006 South Carolina state constitution. Read Article 6, section 2.)

And there are a ton of other reasons why it is politically important to get atheism legally declared a religion. No president would dare have the balls to say "Jewish people don't deserve to be citizens"... and repeat it when challenged. But George Bush Sr. did just that to atheists. If atheism was legally a religion, he could have been sued for discrimination.

So modern atheism was founded in a time when men took religion and misused its teachings to gain power. I can accept and believe that that would happen because people would be tired of religion being the cause for all of the bloodshed during the inquisitions and the dark ages. That does not change the fact that religion was misused back then. Which again, would not be religions fault.

So modern atheism was founded in a time when men took religion and misused its teachings to gain power. I can accept and believe that that would happen because people would be tired of religion being the cause for all of the bloodshed during the inquisitions and the dark ages. That does not change the fact that religion was misused back then. Which again, would not be religions fault.

It was the fault of the representatives of that religion. By your argument nothing is ever the fault of religion, but the simple fact is that religion has been used as an excuse to perpetrate horrors throughout history. When the Pope encourages the burning of witches and the clergy eagerly follow his orders then who are we to blame?

So modern atheism was founded in a time when men took religion and misused its teachings to gain power. I can accept and believe that that would happen because people would be tired of religion being the cause for all of the bloodshed during the inquisitions and the dark ages. That does not change the fact that religion was misused back then. Which again, would not be religions fault.

It was the fault of the representatives of that religion. By your argument nothing is ever the fault of religion, but the simple fact is that religion has been used as an excuse to perpetrate horrors throughout history. When the Pope encourages the burning of witches and the clergy eagerly follow his orders then who are we to blame?

I understand your argument but if you read The Bible then you will not have the urge to burn a witch. I agree the church has gone terribly wrong with examples such as priests molesting young children but again, this is the individual choosing not to follow his religion. There are no representatives of Christianity except Jesus and God himself. When the Pope encourages something ungodly, then he is a bad Pope. He himself is to blame.

HereticMonkey

Bikerman wrote:

It was the fault of the representatives of that religion. By your argument nothing is ever the fault of religion, but the simple fact is that religion has been used as an excuse to perpetrate horrors throughout history. When the Pope encourages the burning of witches and the clergy eagerly follow his orders then who are we to blame?

Like any other organization when the leadership screws up: You nail the leadership. You don't blame the organization, even though you do question the organization a bit. However, the Church has done its job: It's provided a source of solace, charity, and fellowship for those that wouldn't have any otherwise. Like any other group, you are going to have bad people, and mistakes will be made. You should judge an organization more for the overall history rather just a few specific incidents.

HM

Bikerman

HereticMonkey wrote:

Like any other organization when the leadership screws up: You nail the leadership. You don't blame the organization, even though you do question the organization a bit. However, the Church has done its job: It's provided a source of solace, charity, and fellowship for those that wouldn't have any otherwise. Like any other group, you are going to have bad people, and mistakes will be made. You should judge an organization more for the overall history rather just a few specific incidents.

Well, as I said, that is not necessarily true. When the leadership acts illegally then the corporation, in some cases, is also held to have acted illegally. Corporate Manslaughter is an example of such 'accounting', but there are others. When companies are deemed to have acted illegally (because of the actions of their ruling heirarchy) often fines are imposed on the companies themselves as well as legal action being taken against the individuals concerned. Society recognises that companies are legal entities and can be treated as such.

Well, as I said, that is not necessarily true. When the leadership acts illegally then the corporation, in some cases, is also held to have acted illegally. Corporate Manslaughter is an example of such 'accounting', but there are others. When companies are deemed to have acted illegally (because of the actions of their ruling heirarchy) often fines are imposed on the companies themselves as well as legal action being taken against the individuals concerned. Society recognises that companies are legal entities and can be treated as such.

Which is logical. If a crime is committed to benefit the company, by a representative of the company, using the company's resources, with the (at least) tacit consent of the company (or at least, a substantial body of company representatives) - how is the company not party to the crime?

One thing that has always bothered me about this trickle down theory of responsibility you hear religions using - "oh, it wasn't the religion that did the crime, it was the person", even though the religion provided the motivation for the crime - is that if the religion were truly not party to the crime, it should:

Provide compensation of some kind to the victims.

Offer assistance in bringing the criminals to justice.

Surrender any and all assets gained by virtue of the crime.

Institute an education program to make it clear to all members of the religion that such behaviour is absolutely intolerable, and contradictory to teaching.

i don't see these things done in almost all cases of religious violence.

To take a real-world example, consider the abortion clinic killings. In each case, the church could have:

Provide compensation to the clinics and the doctors' families. (Perhaps providing financing to the clinics to improve their security.)

Encouraged congregation members to testify against the shooter, and assisted with legal fees for the prosecution.

No assets were gained except the loss of functioning of the abortion clinics. The churches could have provided the lost wages for the days the clinics were closed and/or donated monies to institute training programs to replace the lost doctors.

Institute an education program to make it clear to all members of the religion that such behaviour is absolutely intolerable, and contradictory to teaching. (Pretty much self-explanatory.)

Instead:

No support or compensation was ever provided to the clinics or the doctors' families.

They encouraged congregation members not to testify against the shooter, and assisted with legal fees for the defense.

They did nothing to help the clinics, and instead cheered that they had managed to shut one down for a while at least. Instead, they used their assets to print even anti-abortion propaganda.

Aside from a few vague disclaimers - "Shooting the doctor was wrong, as much as i agree with it" - no attempt was made to make it clear to all members of the religion that such behaviour is intolerable or contradictory to teaching.

So... should the religion be held guilty in that case? Yes.

catscratches

That's the same argumentation of the owners of Pirate Bay.

"We didn't do it! We just provided the possibility to do it, all the material, we encouraged it and didn't do anything to stop it when people told us to."